User talk:Dtetta

A barnstar for you!
Thanks Femke! Dtetta (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! Dtetta (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want a challenge
I just found Cooperative Mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement Chidgk1 (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Agree that would be a good article to work on. It’s currently on the “See also” list of the Carbon accounting article, but glad you reminded me - just added a wikilink to it from the text in the drivers section:) Dtetta (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine thanks for asking
replied in full at User:Chidgk1 Chidgk1 (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Help For environment.wiki
Hi, Noticing you contribute quite a bit here, thanks! Wondering if you could spare 5-10 minutes and look at environment.wiki and give your thoughts on the project. It's mission is different than Wikipedia - it is a database of environmental actions and meant to help people more quickly find groups actively doing working in the environment and people can put their own projects up ( almost needed by necessity) Thank you for any advice/time - Cheers Phill TheFeels (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carbon accounting
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carbon accounting you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Dtetta (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Carbon accounting
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Carbon accounting, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_accounting&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1157307707%7CCarbon%20accounting%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your GA nomination of Carbon accounting
The article Carbon accounting you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Carbon accounting for comments about the article, and Talk:Carbon accounting/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Carbon accounting
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Your edit to Carbon capture and storage has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * -Please explain how you see this as a copyright violation. The paragraph on mintz.com reads:
 * ”To mitigate the most severe impacts of the climate crisis, many scientists have emphasized the importance of not only reducing emissions, but also removing carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon capture technologies are crucial to this effort – and Biden’s infrastructure bill may provide the funding necessary to realize carbon removal solutions. The Law allocates $2.54 billion for demonstration projects related to carbon capture at coal- and natural gas-fired operations and $937 million for large-scale carbon capture pilot projects. To address the significant need for infrastructure devoted to capturing CO2, the Law provides $3.5 billion over five years for projects that help to develop four regional hubs to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and then transport, store, and use it. An additional $600 million is available in fiscal 2022 and 2023, and $300 million each year thereafter through fiscal 2026, to provide loan guarantees and secured loans supporting infrastructure projects to transport CO2.”
 * My paragraph reads:”
 * In the US, a number of laws and rules have been issued to either support or require the use of CCS technologies. The 2021 Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act provides $2.54 billion for demonstration projects related to carbon capture at coal- and natural gas-fired operations and $937 million for large-scale carbon capture pilot projects. In addition, $3.5 billion was allocated to develop four regional hubs to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and then transport, store, and use it. An additional $600 million provides loan guarantees supporting infrastructure projects to transport CO2.”
 * Mintz is just reporting the same basic statistics that a number of other sources report about this law. I summarized that information, using my own words. Do I need to use different wording? Or do you see a problem citing those numbers? Your criticism does not make sense to me. Dtetta (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Dtetta, that your contribution is not a violation of copyright or any reasonably interpreted Wikipedia policy. The presentation of statistics using essentially unavoidable technical/legalistic language/descriptions, or a specific choice of statistics, are not violations of copyright. I'd be interested in seeing how Diannaa would re-phrase the description—while retaining the substance of the content. She was not able to do so on my page without missing the mark completely on what substance was trying to be communicated (diff). She may be trying to raise consciousness on the issue, but is overstepping. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can view the overlap using Earwig's tool. In my opinion this is a copyrioght violation, as the content goes beyond a simple presentation of numerical data and contains enough creativity to qualify for copyright protection. — Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that support . - when I clicked on the Earwig link you provided, it said “violation unlikely”. In that case I think most editors would consider the text being evaluated as ok to use. Nevertheless, I revised the wording to further reduce any copyright violation potential, and reinserted those sentences. Let me know if you still have concerns. One question I have is how do you find that edit ID to insert into the tool? Dtetta (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pleople who do copyright cleanup don't look at the percentage at all. It's meaningless. What I do is look at the actual overlapping content to make my decision. — Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Copyright investigations involve analysis of the copyrighted work as a whole. (See U.S. Copyright Office's description of factors for fair use—which permits outright copying: "Factor 3: Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole".) Under Diannaa's cherry-picking approach, by writing "George Washington was the first president" you would infringe a 10,000-word source that said "George Washington was the first president". — RCraig09 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Great perspective - thanks RCraig09! Dtetta (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also: Diannaa's approach, "you must write using your own words", involves superseding the professional/technical knowledge and writing skill of the reliable source, with the understanding and writing skill of a typical Wikipedian. This substitution is a special problem in technical/scientific areas, or whenever there are few or no other terms to faithfully present the content. Her subsequent rewrite on my page missed the mark completely on what substance I was trying to communicate. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dtetta], Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. If you are not able to do that, please don't add it. — Diannaa (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Adding: I see you have now re-written the content in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - that is what I said I did in my earlier comment. Dtetta (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * - I received a notice that you made an edit today on the CCS page with this description "Editor's summary: RD1: Violations of copyright policy". You seem to have done this after I adjusted the text to deal with your concerns. It doesn't seem like you changed any text with this edit, but it's just a notation of some sort on the page. What does this mean? - do you know what this means? Dtetta (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I performed revision deletion on the edits that violated copyright, not on the new version, which appears to be okay from a copyright point of view. Edits from 15:49, September 21, 2023‎ to the point of removal are now hidden from view. — Diannaa (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)